Laugh of the day: Hillary’s “defense” of Obama’s warm greeting to Chavez

Did anyone catch what Hillary Clinton said today in response to questions about Obama’s chatting it up with Venezuela’s Socialist dictator Hugo Chavez?

At a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing this afternoon, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defended her boss’s foreign policy views in a way that seemed to suggest that she personally holds a different view than does President Obama, but that he beat her in the Democratic presidential primaries, so his view wins.

The remark came after Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., challenged Clinton on “the issue of the president being photographed with the virulent anti-American socialist dictator of Venezuela,” President Hugo Chavez.

Pence called Chavez “a Castro wannabe” who has “oppressed the media,… bullied economic interests,… (and) blacklisted political opponents.”

The Indiana Republican quoted remarks then-Sen. Clinton, D-N.Y., made in July 2007 regarding potential meetings with the leaders of North Korea, Venezuela, or Cuba: “I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes.”
Pence asked: “In light of your previously stated insight, isn’t it true that having the president of the United States be seen on the world stage warmly greeting a virulent anti-American socialist dictator that intentionally or unintentionally our president was used ‘for propaganda purposes,’ to borrow the phrase that you used?”

Said Clinton: “President Obama won the election. He beat me in a primary, in which he put forth a different approach. And he is now our president, and we all want our president, no matter of which party, to succeed, especially in such a perilous time.”

She said more after that, but wow – she really made it all about her to start with. She’s learned well from her boss. Or maybe he learned it from her.

Where’s that blasted reset button when you need it?

Far left: “Outing” CIA agent is bad, exposing CIA interrogation tactics that save lives is good

Just came to me: Now that the cat is out of the box regarding the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques – to the delight of liberals across the country but to the detriment of our safety and security, I think it’s safe to say that their “outrage” over the alleged “outting” of Valerie Plame due to “national security” concerns was more like …


Really. Can these people possibly be anymore transparent in their anti-Bush/Cheney agendas? They’re playing games with our national security – as usual. And if it costs lives, we’ll know exactly where to look when the fingerpointing starts.

Liberals in full “Get Dumbya/Darth Cheney!” mode … over Bush keeping this country safe

Here are some of the headlines at Memeorandum:

—- MoveOn Torture Ad Highlights Cheney For Investigation

—- Bob Graham: Bush Criminal Prosecutions Should Be On The Table

—- Pelosi Presses for ‘Truth Commission’

—- Leahy Will Defy Obama to Pursue Bush-Era Torture Inquiry

What, you didn’t think they were actually going to abandon their desire to “get Bush/Cheney,” did you?

Related: Obama muddles torture message

Update: ST reader Anthony has a thougtful post on the whole “torture” debate here. Make sure to read the whole thing.